How so? Because I don't agree with your opinion? Anyways, this is completely irrelevant to Frazier-Foreman. You're acting like a big baby. Calm down.
Yes he did. I just checked. I was wrong and I'll admit that. I must've had mistaken it for another fighter.
Obviously I can't respond to it because the way you've worded it. But everything in there was ****. Post all your thoughts again directly, and I'll readily refute it. :good
I was wrong. Unlike you, who will try to deliberately lie to prove a point and upon being caught and called out, will start to backtrack, change the subject, or ignore it entirely.
Well, since you obviously ****ed up the quotes like everything in your life. I'll post each half of my post separately. First off, whether you like it or not, Lewis didn't win the first fight. He won the second. I really don't care about the general forum. Most of them are ignorant saps. Like yourself You can't. That's why you didn't refute it. It was for actual boxing fans, that actually have an understanding of the sport. Oh wait, you're not in that group. :yep Literally everything in that sentence was wrong. He didn't have wins over Holyfield. He had one win. And it was far from decisive. What do you define as a SHW? Obviously there is " real doubt" seeing as a washed up Holyfield got blatantly robbed against a peak Lewis. Also, if there's no doubt, why are we flat out arguing about it? Are you dyslexic? I clearly said nearly a decade. That hardly translates to full decades. Also, you literally just ignored my point. At least I know how to quote properly, whereas you are using the Bold button, instead of the quote. fight 1 wasn't decisive. Holyfield was extremely sick in the third fight and still managed to knock him down
QUOTE]That's not what I remotely said. I said Holyfield was near prime against Lewis, [/QUOTE] So now, you're admitting you said Holyfield was near his prime against Lewis. Did you or did you not say he was prime for the first Bowe fight? He must've been Superman if he was still near his prime seven years after it ended. Saying Holyfield would lose to Lewis is acceptable. Saying he had nothing to trouble him is complete ignorance and short sighted. According to your logic, Holyfield who troubled prime Lewis in their first fight, got robbed against prime Lewis in the second fight, when he was very old, wouldn't be able to at least trouble that same Lewis in his prime? :huh I've answered every single argument of yours'. You however haven't answered mine. Whatever, you're a joke and a delusional one at that.
For starters, you should acknowledge that Holyfield lost the first fight horribly. You sound like a tool saying that Lewis couldn't beat Holyfield in the first fight, which was a highway robbery, and then arguing that Lewis robbed Holyfield in the rematch.
Many might disagree, but I actually think that the Holyfield of the Douglas fight is the version with the best chance against Lewis. In many ways the post cruiserweight Holyfield, is the version that impressed me the most.
Holyfield did do a pretty good job in the Lewis rematch, winning 4-5 rounds. Much better than the first, where I gave him 2 rounds. I think prime Lewis always had the right style to give prime Holyfield hell and beat him. His mixture of size and power, his height and reach, jab and overall ****nal of punches, I think he wins a decision like he did in the rematch, taking 7-8 of the 12 rounds.